Let’s unpack it carefully — the short answer is: ✅ they behave the same, but 🚀 give you flexibility in different contexts.
🧠 The Core Truth
synchronized void foo() | Locks on this monitor |
---|---|
synchronized (this) { ... } | Also locks on this monitor |
✅ So yes, they are functionally equivalent, but here’s why both exist and are useful:
🔍 Difference in Control and Flexibility
🔹 synchronized(this)
public void foo() {
synchronized (this) {
// critical section
}
}
✅ Gives you partial synchronization — only part of the method is locked
✅ You can synchronize on other objects too:
synchronized (someOtherObject) { ... }
✅ Can mix synchronized and unsynchronized logic:
public void update() {
validateInputs();
synchronized (this) {
doCriticalUpdate();
}
}
🔸 synchronized
method
public synchronized void foo() {
// critical section
}
✅ Cleaner and simpler syntax
✅ You can use it when the entire method is critical
❌ But you cannot control which object it synchronizes on — always this
✨ Summary: When to Use What?
Use Case | Prefer |
---|---|
Entire method is critical | ✅ synchronized method |
Only part of the method is critical | ✅ synchronized(this) block |
Want to lock on a different object | ✅ synchronized(obj) |
Need more advanced locking behavior | ❗ Use ReentrantLock , not synchronized |
🧪 Want an Example?
🔄 Mixed access method:
public class Counter {
private int count = 0;
public void increment() {
// unsynchronized logic
System.out.println("Pre-check done by " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
// only this part is critical
synchronized (this) {
count++;
}
}
}
This would not be possible with a synchronized
method.
🚀 TL;DR
Concept | synchronized method | synchronized(this) |
---|---|---|
Lock target | this | this or any object |
Control scope | Entire method | Any code block |
Flexibility | ❌ Less | ✅ More |
Readability | ✅ Simpler | 🟡 Slightly more verbose |