TLDR;不要使用synchronized修饰符或synchronized(this){…}表达式but synchronized(myLock){…其中myLock是一个持有私有对象的最终实例字段。

在方法声明中使用synchronized修饰符与在方法主体中使用synchronized(..){}表达式的区别如下:

The synchronized modifier specified on the method's signature is visible in the generated JavaDoc, is programmatically determinable via reflection when testing a method's modifier for Modifier.SYNCHRONIZED, requires less typing and indention compared to synchronized(this) { .... }, and (depending on your IDE) is visible in the class outline and code completion, uses the this object as lock when declared on non-static method or the enclosing class when declared on a static method. The synchronized(...){...} expression allows you to only synchronize the execution of parts of a method's body, to be used within a constructor or a (static) initialization block, to choose the lock object which controls the synchronized access.

然而，使用synchronized修饰符或synchronized(…){…}使用this作为锁对象(如synchronized(this){…})，也有同样的缺点。两者都使用它自己的实例作为锁对象进行同步。这是很危险的，因为不仅对象本身，而且任何其他持有该对象引用的外部对象/代码也可以将其用作同步锁，这可能会产生严重的副作用(性能下降和死锁)。

因此，最佳实践是既不使用synchronized修饰符，也不使用synchronized(…)表达式作为锁对象，而是使用该对象的私有锁对象。例如:

public class MyService {
    private final lock = new Object();

    public void doThis() {
       synchronized(lock) {
          // do code that requires synchronous execution
        }
    }

    public void doThat() {
       synchronized(lock) {
          // do code that requires synchronous execution
        }
    }
}

您也可以使用多个锁对象，但是需要特别注意，以确保在嵌套使用时不会导致死锁。

public class MyService {
    private final lock1 = new Object();
    private final lock2 = new Object();

    public void doThis() {
       synchronized(lock1) {
          synchronized(lock2) {
              // code here is guaranteed not to be executes at the same time
              // as the synchronized code in doThat() and doMore().
          }
    }

    public void doThat() {
       synchronized(lock1) {
              // code here is guaranteed not to be executes at the same time
              // as the synchronized code in doThis().
              // doMore() may execute concurrently
        }
    }

    public void doMore() {
       synchronized(lock2) {
              // code here is guaranteed not to be executes at the same time
              // as the synchronized code in doThis().
              // doThat() may execute concurrently
        }
    }
}

通常在方法级别上使用锁是不礼貌的。为什么要通过锁定整个方法来锁定一段不能访问任何共享资源的代码呢?因为每个对象都有一个锁，所以可以创建虚拟对象来实现块级同步。 块级的效率更高，因为它不锁定整个方法。

这里有一些例子

方法级

class MethodLevel {

  //shared among threads
SharedResource x, y ;

public void synchronized method1() {
   //multiple threads can't access
}
public void synchronized method2() {
  //multiple threads can't access
}

 public void method3() {
  //not synchronized
  //multiple threads can access
 }
}

块级别

class BlockLevel {
  //shared among threads
  SharedResource x, y ;

  //dummy objects for locking
  Object xLock = new Object();
  Object yLock = new Object();

    public void method1() {
     synchronized(xLock){
    //access x here. thread safe
    }

    //do something here but don't use SharedResource x, y
    // because will not be thread-safe
     synchronized(xLock) {
       synchronized(yLock) {
      //access x,y here. thread safe
      }
     }

     //do something here but don't use SharedResource x, y
     //because will not be thread-safe
    }//end of method1
 }

(编辑)

对于像Vector和Hashtable这样的集合，当ArrayList或HashMap不同步时，它们是同步的，你需要设置synchronized关键字或调用Collections synchronized方法:

Map myMap = Collections.synchronizedMap (myMap); // single lock for the entire map
List myList = Collections.synchronizedList (myList); // single lock for the entire list

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.

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。

主要的区别是，如果你使用同步块，你可以锁定一个对象，而不是这个，这允许更灵活。

假设您有一个消息队列和多个消息生产者和消费者。我们不希望生产者相互干扰，但是消费者应该能够检索消息，而不必等待生产者。 我们只需要创建一个对象

Object writeLock = new Object();

从现在开始，每当制作人想要添加一条新信息时，我们就会锁定它:

synchronized(writeLock){
  // do something
}

因此，消费者可能仍会阅读，而生产者将被锁定。