In general these are mostly the same other than being explicit about the object's monitor that's being used vs the implicit this object. One downside of synchronized methods that I think is sometimes overlooked is that in using the "this" reference to synchronize on you are leaving open the possibility of external objects locking on the same object. That can be a very subtle bug if you run into it. Synchronizing on an internal explicit Object or other existing field can avoid this issue, completely encapsulating the synchronization.

大多数情况下，我使用它来同步对列表或映射的访问，但我不想阻止对对象的所有方法的访问。

在下面的代码中，修改列表的线程不会阻塞等待正在修改映射的线程。如果方法在对象上是同步的，那么每个方法都必须等待，即使它们所做的修改不会冲突。

private List<Foo> myList = new ArrayList<Foo>();
private Map<String,Bar) myMap = new HashMap<String,Bar>();

public void put( String s, Bar b ) {
  synchronized( myMap ) {
    myMap.put( s,b );
    // then some thing that may take a while like a database access or RPC or notifying listeners
  }
}

public void hasKey( String s, ) {
  synchronized( myMap ) {
    myMap.hasKey( s );
  }
}

public void add( Foo f ) {
  synchronized( myList ) {
    myList.add( f );
// then some thing that may take a while like a database access or RPC or notifying listeners
  }
}

public Thing getMedianFoo() {
  Foo med = null;
  synchronized( myList ) {
    Collections.sort(myList);
    med = myList.get(myList.size()/2); 
  }
  return med;
}

来自Java规范摘要: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/javaspec/17.doc.html

The synchronized statement (§14.17) computes a reference to an object; it then attempts to perform a lock action on that object and does not proceed further until the lock action has successfully completed. ... A synchronized method (§8.4.3.5) automatically performs a lock action when it is invoked; its body is not executed until the lock action has successfully completed. If the method is an instance method, it locks the lock associated with the instance for which it was invoked (that is, the object that will be known as this during execution of the body of the method). If the method is static, it locks the lock associated with the Class object that represents the class in which the method is defined. ...

基于这些描述，我想说以前的大多数答案都是正确的，同步方法可能对静态方法特别有用，否则您必须弄清楚如何获得“表示定义方法的类的Class对象”。

编辑:我原本以为这些是对实际Java规范的引用。澄清一下，本页只是对规范的总结/解释

我知道这是一个老问题，但通过快速阅读这里的回答，我并没有看到任何人提到同步方法有时可能是错误的锁。 摘自Java并发实践(第72页):

public class ListHelper<E> {
  public List<E> list = Collections.syncrhonizedList(new ArrayList<>());
...

public syncrhonized boolean putIfAbsent(E x) {
 boolean absent = !list.contains(x);
if(absent) {
 list.add(x);
}
return absent;
}

上面的代码看起来是线程安全的。然而，现实并非如此。在这种情况下，锁在类的实例上获得。但是，该列表可能被另一个不使用该方法的线程修改。正确的方法是使用

public boolean putIfAbsent(E x) {
 synchronized(list) {
  boolean absent = !list.contains(x);
  if(absent) {
    list.add(x);
  }
  return absent;
}
}

上面的代码将阻止所有试图修改list的线程修改列表，直到同步块完成。

使用同步块，您可以有多个同步器，因此多个同时但不冲突的事情可以同时进行。

在实际应用中，同步方法相对于同步块的优势在于它们更能抵抗白痴;因为您不能选择任意对象来锁定，所以您不能滥用synchronized方法语法来做一些愚蠢的事情，比如锁定字符串文字或锁定从线程下面更改的可变字段的内容。

另一方面，使用同步方法，您无法保护锁不被任何可以获得对象引用的线程获取。

因此，在方法上使用synchronized作为修饰符可以更好地保护你的奶牛免受伤害，而将synchronized块与私有final锁对象结合使用则可以更好地保护你自己的代码免受奶牛的伤害。