我将分别讨论每一点。

Some evil code may steal your lock (very popular this one, also has an "accidentally" variant) I'm more worried about accidentally. What it amounts to is that this use of this is part of your class' exposed interface, and should be documented. Sometimes the ability of other code to use your lock is desired. This is true of things like Collections.synchronizedMap (see the javadoc). All synchronized methods within the same class use the exact same lock, which reduces throughput This is overly simplistic thinking; just getting rid of synchronized(this) won't solve the problem. Proper synchronization for throughput will take more thought. You are (unnecessarily) exposing too much information This is a variant of #1. Use of synchronized(this) is part of your interface. If you don't want/need this exposed, don't do it.

我将分别讨论每一点。

Some evil code may steal your lock (very popular this one, also has an "accidentally" variant) I'm more worried about accidentally. What it amounts to is that this use of this is part of your class' exposed interface, and should be documented. Sometimes the ability of other code to use your lock is desired. This is true of things like Collections.synchronizedMap (see the javadoc). All synchronized methods within the same class use the exact same lock, which reduces throughput This is overly simplistic thinking; just getting rid of synchronized(this) won't solve the problem. Proper synchronization for throughput will take more thought. You are (unnecessarily) exposing too much information This is a variant of #1. Use of synchronized(this) is part of your interface. If you don't want/need this exposed, don't do it.

简单的回答:您必须了解其中的区别，并根据代码做出选择。

Long answer: In general I would rather try to avoid synchronize(this) to reduce contention but private locks add complexity you have to be aware of. So use the right synchronization for the right job. If you are not so experienced with multi-threaded programming I would rather stick to instance locking and read up on this topic. (That said: just using synchronize(this) does not automatically make your class fully thread-safe.) This is a not an easy topic but once you get used to it, the answer whether to use synchronize(this) or not comes naturally.

如果你已经决定:

你要做的就是锁定目标 当前对象;而且 你想要 锁定粒度小于 整体方法;

那么我就不认为synchronizezd是一个禁忌。

Some people deliberately use synchronized(this) (instead of marking the method synchronized) inside the whole contents of a method because they think it's "clearer to the reader" which object is actually being synchronized on. So long as people are making an informed choice (e.g. understand that by doing so they're actually inserting extra bytecodes into the method and this could have a knock-on effect on potential optimisations), I don't particularly see a problem with this. You should always document the concurrent behaviour of your program, so I don't see the "'synchronized' publishes the behaviour" argument as being so compelling.

至于应该使用哪个对象的锁的问题，我认为在当前对象上同步并没有什么错，如果这是你所做的逻辑所期望的，以及你的类通常是如何被使用的。例如，对于集合，逻辑上期望锁定的对象通常是集合本身。

不，你不应该总是这样。但是，当一个特定对象上有多个关注点时，我倾向于避免它，而这些关注点只需要对它们本身是线程安全的。例如，你可能有一个可变数据对象，它有“label”和“parent”字段;它们需要是线程安全的，但是改变其中一个不需要阻止另一个被写入/读取。(在实践中，我将通过声明字段为volatile和/或使用java.util来避免这种情况。concurrent的AtomicFoo包装器)。

一般来说，同步有点笨拙，因为它只是一个大的锁定，而不是仔细考虑如何允许线程相互工作。使用synchronized(this)更加笨拙和反社会，因为它表示“当我持有锁时，没有人可以更改这个类的任何内容”。你需要多久做一次?

I would much rather have more granular locks; even if you do want to stop everything from changing (perhaps you're serialising the object), you can just acquire all of the locks to achieve the same thing, plus it's more explicit that way. When you use synchronized(this), it's not clear exactly why you're synchronizing, or what the side effects might be. If you use synchronized(labelMonitor), or even better labelLock.getWriteLock().lock(), it's clear what you are doing and what the effects of your critical section are limited to.

我认为第一点(其他人使用您的锁)和第二点(所有方法不必要地使用相同的锁)可能发生在任何相当大的应用程序中。特别是当开发人员之间没有良好的沟通时。

这不是一成不变的，这主要是一个良好的实践和防止错误的问题。