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。

我想这个问题是关于线程安全单例和带有双重检查锁定的惰性初始化之间的区别。当我需要实现某些特定的单例时，我总是会参考这篇文章。

这是一个线程安全单例:

// Java program to create Thread Safe 
// Singleton class 
public class GFG  
{ 
  // private instance, so that it can be 
  // accessed by only by getInstance() method 
  private static GFG instance; 

  private GFG()  
  { 
    // private constructor 
  } 

 //synchronized method to control simultaneous access 
  synchronized public static GFG getInstance()  
  { 
    if (instance == null)  
    { 
      // if instance is null, initialize 
      instance = new GFG(); 
    } 
    return instance; 
  } 
} 

优点: 延迟初始化是可能的。 它是线程安全的。 缺点: getInstance()方法是同步的，因此它会导致性能变慢，因为多个线程不能同时访问它。

这是一个带有双重检查锁定的Lazy初始化:

// Java code to explain double check locking 
public class GFG  
{ 
  // private instance, so that it can be 
  // accessed by only by getInstance() method 
  private static GFG instance; 

  private GFG()  
  { 
    // private constructor 
  } 

  public static GFG getInstance() 
  { 
    if (instance == null)  
    { 
      //synchronized block to remove overhead 
      synchronized (GFG.class) 
      { 
        if(instance==null) 
        { 
          // if instance is null, initialize 
          instance = new GFG(); 
        } 

      } 
    } 
    return instance; 
  } 
} 

优点: 延迟初始化是可能的。 它也是线程安全的。 克服了synchronized关键字导致的性能下降。 缺点: 第一次，它会影响性能。 由于双止回锁方法的缺点是可以承受的，所以可以 用于高性能多线程应用程序。

详情请参考这篇文章:

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/java-singleton-design-pattern-practices-examples/

As already said here synchronized block can use user-defined variable as lock object, when synchronized function uses only "this". And of course you can manipulate with areas of your function which should be synchronized. But everyone says that no difference between synchronized function and block which covers whole function using "this" as lock object. That is not true, difference is in byte code which will be generated in both situations. In case of synchronized block usage should be allocated local variable which holds reference to "this". And as result we will have a little bit larger size for function (not relevant if you have only few number of functions).

你可以在这里找到更详细的解释: http://www.artima.com/insidejvm/ed2/threadsynchP.html

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。

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。