在同步方法的情况下，锁将在对象上获得。但是如果你使用同步块，你可以选择指定一个对象来获取锁。

例子:

    Class Example {
    String test = "abc";
    // lock will be acquired on String  test object.
    synchronized (test) {
        // do something
    }

   lock will be acquired on Example Object
   public synchronized void testMethod() {
     // do some thing
   } 

   }

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
        }
    }
}

Synchronizing with threads. 1) NEVER use synchronized(this) in a thread it doesn't work. Synchronizing with (this) uses the current thread as the locking thread object. Since each thread is independent of other threads, there is NO coordination of synchronization. 2) Tests of code show that in Java 1.6 on a Mac the method synchronization does not work. 3) synchronized(lockObj) where lockObj is a common shared object of all threads synchronizing on it will work. 4) ReenterantLock.lock() and .unlock() work. See Java tutorials for this.

The following code shows these points. It also contains the thread-safe Vector which would be substituted for the ArrayList, to show that many threads adding to a Vector do not lose any information, while the same with an ArrayList can lose information. 0) Current code shows loss of information due to race conditions A) Comment the current labeled A line, and uncomment the A line above it, then run, method loses data but it shouldn't. B) Reverse step A, uncomment B and // end block }. Then run to see results no loss of data C) Comment out B, uncomment C. Run, see synchronizing on (this) loses data, as expected. Don't have time to complete all the variations, hope this helps. If synchronizing on (this), or the method synchronization works, please state what version of Java and OS you tested. Thank you.

import java.util.*;

/** RaceCondition - Shows that when multiple threads compete for resources 
     thread one may grab the resource expecting to update a particular 
     area but is removed from the CPU before finishing.  Thread one still 
     points to that resource.  Then thread two grabs that resource and 
     completes the update.  Then thread one gets to complete the update, 
     which over writes thread two's work.
     DEMO:  1) Run as is - see missing counts from race condition, Run severa times, values change  
            2) Uncomment "synchronized(countLock){ }" - see counts work
            Synchronized creates a lock on that block of code, no other threads can 
            execute code within a block that another thread has a lock.
        3) Comment ArrayList, unComment Vector - See no loss in collection
            Vectors work like ArrayList, but Vectors are "Thread Safe"
         May use this code as long as attribution to the author remains intact.
     /mf
*/ 

public class RaceCondition {
    private ArrayList<Integer> raceList = new ArrayList<Integer>(); // simple add(#)
//  private Vector<Integer> raceList = new Vector<Integer>(); // simple add(#)

    private String countLock="lock";    // Object use for locking the raceCount
    private int raceCount = 0;        // simple add 1 to this counter
    private int MAX = 10000;        // Do this 10,000 times
    private int NUM_THREADS = 100;    // Create 100 threads

    public static void main(String [] args) {
    new RaceCondition();
    }

    public RaceCondition() {
    ArrayList<Thread> arT = new ArrayList<Thread>();

    // Create thread objects, add them to an array list
    for( int i=0; i<NUM_THREADS; i++){
        Thread rt = new RaceThread( ); // i );
        arT.add( rt );
    }

    // Start all object at once.
    for( Thread rt : arT ){
        rt.start();
    }

    // Wait for all threads to finish before we can print totals created by threads
    for( int i=0; i<NUM_THREADS; i++){
        try { arT.get(i).join(); }
        catch( InterruptedException ie ) { System.out.println("Interrupted thread "+i); }
    }

    // All threads finished, print the summary information.
    // (Try to print this informaiton without the join loop above)
    System.out.printf("\nRace condition, should have %,d. Really have %,d in array, and count of %,d.\n",
                MAX*NUM_THREADS, raceList.size(), raceCount );
    System.out.printf("Array lost %,d. Count lost %,d\n",
             MAX*NUM_THREADS-raceList.size(), MAX*NUM_THREADS-raceCount );
    }   // end RaceCondition constructor



    class RaceThread extends Thread {
    public void run() {
        for ( int i=0; i<MAX; i++){
        try {
            update( i );        
        }    // These  catches show when one thread steps on another's values
        catch( ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException ai ){ System.out.print("A"); }
        catch( OutOfMemoryError oome ) { System.out.print("O"); }
        }
    }

    // so we don't lose counts, need to synchronize on some object, not primitive
    // Created "countLock" to show how this can work.
    // Comment out the synchronized and ending {, see that we lose counts.

//    public synchronized void update(int i){   // use A
    public void update(int i){                  // remove this when adding A
//      synchronized(countLock){            // or B
//      synchronized(this){             // or C
        raceCount = raceCount + 1;
        raceList.add( i );      // use Vector  
//          }           // end block for B or C
    }   // end update

    }   // end RaceThread inner class


} // end RaceCondition outter class

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.

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。

同步的方法

优点:

您的IDE可以指示同步方法。 语法更加紧凑。 强制将同步块分割为单独的方法。

缺点:

与此同步，因此外部人员也可以与之同步。 将代码移到同步块之外更加困难。

同步块

优点:

允许为锁使用私有变量，从而将锁强制留在类内部。 同步块可以通过搜索变量的引用来找到。

缺点:

语法更复杂，因此使代码更难阅读。

就我个人而言，我更喜欢使用同步方法，类只关注需要同步的东西。这样的类应该尽可能小，所以应该很容易检查同步。其他人不需要关心同步。