这实际上只是对其他答案的补充，但如果你对使用私有对象进行锁定的主要反对意见是，它会使你的类与与业务逻辑无关的字段混乱，那么Project Lombok有@Synchronized在编译时生成样板:

@Synchronized
public int foo() {
    return 0;
}

编译,

private final Object $lock = new Object[0];

public int foo() {
    synchronized($lock) {
        return 0;
    }
}

在c#和Java阵营中似乎有不同的共识。我看到的大多数Java代码使用:

// apply mutex to this instance
synchronized(this) {
    // do work here
}

而大多数c#代码选择了更安全的:

// instance level lock object
private readonly object _syncObj = new object();

...

// apply mutex to private instance level field (a System.Object usually)
lock(_syncObj)
{
    // do work here
}

c#语言当然更安全。如前所述，不能从实例外部对锁进行恶意/意外访问。Java代码也有这种风险，但随着时间的推移，Java社区似乎倾向于稍微不那么安全，但稍微更简洁的版本。

这并不是对Java的挖苦，只是我在这两种语言上工作的经验的反映。

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.

如果可能的话，让你的数据不可变(最终变量) 如果你不能避免跨多个线程共享数据的突变，使用高级编程结构[例如，粒度锁API]

Lock提供对共享资源的独占访问:一次只有一个线程可以获得锁，并且对共享资源的所有访问都要求首先获得锁。

使用ReentrantLock实现Lock接口的示例代码

 class X {
   private final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();
   // ...

   public void m() {
     lock.lock();  // block until condition holds
     try {
       // ... method body
     } finally {
       lock.unlock()
     }
   }
 }

锁定相对于同步的优势

The use of synchronized methods or statements forces all lock acquisition and release to occur in a block-structured way. Lock implementations provide additional functionality over the use of synchronized methods and statements by providing A non-blocking attempt to acquire a lock (tryLock()) An attempt to acquire the lock that can be interrupted (lockInterruptibly()) An attempt to acquire the lock that can timeout (tryLock(long, TimeUnit)). A Lock class can also provide behavior and semantics that is quite different from that of the implicit monitor lock, such as guaranteed ordering non-re entrant usage Deadlock detection

看看这个关于各种锁的SE问题:

同步vs锁定

您可以通过使用高级并发API而不是synchronized块来实现线程安全。该文档页提供了实现线程安全的良好编程结构。

锁对象支持简化许多并发应用程序的锁定习惯用法。

executor为启动和管理线程定义了高级API。concurrent提供的执行器实现提供了适合大型应用程序的线程池管理。

并发集合使管理大型数据集合变得更容易，并且可以大大减少同步的需要。

原子变量具有最小化同步和帮助避免内存一致性错误的特性。

ThreadLocalRandom(在JDK 7中)提供了从多个线程有效生成伪随机数的功能。

其他编程结构也可以参考java.util.concurrent和java.util.concurrent.atomic包。

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。

concurrent包极大地降低了线程安全代码的复杂性。我只有一些轶事证据，但我所见过的大多数synchronized(x)工作似乎都是重新实现Lock、Semaphore或Latch，但使用的是较低级别的监视器。

考虑到这一点，使用这些机制中的任何一种进行同步都类似于对内部对象进行同步，而不是泄露锁。这是非常有益的，因为您可以绝对确定通过两个或多个线程控制进入监视器的条目。