Because conversations are split into forums and teams, there could be some confusion about how to communicate, which means other apps like Glip (opens in new tab) or Flock (opens in new tab) might be better options if you just need to pump up your convos. Ryver can’t quite match the power or advanced features of Microsoft Teams (opens in new tab), so the debate is whether you should start paying $49 per month for an app that doesn’t seem that much more extensive than apps that are free, like Slack (opens in new tab). The Enterprise version adds single-sign-on capability and premium support, although all versions of Ryver already include unlimited storage and messaging. You can also add a social media stream so employees can keep track of company social media posts. You can add a news stream by way of an RSS feed so users can see news updates. One interesting feature has to do with keeping track of news and social media. (By comparison, Microsoft Teams let you chat with a group of 10,000 people in a webinar format.) Integrations are readily available, so you can add Trello tasks and many other apps within the messaging channels. There’s a video and voice chat component, although it maxes out at five users. That said, Ryver does provide all of the basics you’d expect. Otherwise, if the goal is to add extensive features, then good luck competing with Microsoft. To compete, any competitor to Slack needs to be even easier to use. Some of the competitors to Microsoft Teams and Slack, such as Glip and Flock, are a bit lost in the same middle ground. Ryver is not as rich and deep in terms of features as Microsoft Teams or Mattermost, nor does it offer the same immediate accessibility and intuitiveness of Slack. No team messaging app should have to start with a training session about why there are both forums and teams. If you really do use it to replace your task management app, chatting should be even easier and more straightforward. The app is trying to combine Slack and Trello in one tool. The most troubling issue with Rvyer is that all of this conversation isn’t even the main point. You can imagine a new user thinking - was this conversation I’m supposed to join only meant for my department or was it open and public, involving people who don’t ever work here? Most of us don’t just chat with those on our specific team. In fact, if you do, it might create division within the company. If you are in Marketing, you would likely not discuss projects only with your given department. This isn’t really how people discuss projects, though. This makes it possible to have a Forum to discuss marketing projects and a team for those who are in the Marketing department, for example, and hold completely different chats. Teams is meant for conversations only for those who are part of a set team. The People section is for direct messaging. Forums are essentially the same as channels in Slack. There are sections for Forums, Teams, and People. If it is possible for the internal counter of a multiprocessing.BoundedSemaphore object to exceed the initial value, then how is it different from multiprocessing.The main issue with Ryver is the way it organizes conversations. The 5 processes that acquire the bounded-semaphore are f(3), f(5), f(4), f(7) and f(7). But from the output it looks like the internal-counter of the bounded-semaphore has increased to 5 because 5 processes acquire the bounded-semaphore. After this, I was expecting the internal counter of the bounded-semaphore to be 3 (because it is bounded), so 3 more processes should be able to acquire the bounded-semaphore now. Then f(0) release the bounded-semaphore 5 times. The above output shows that f(0), f(1) and f(2) acquire the bounded-semaphore and the remaining processes block while trying to acquire indicating that the internal counter of the bounded-semaphore is now down to 0. The blank lines between the output below have been inserted by me manually to indicate pauses between outputs. Here is the output on my macOS Sierra 10.12.5 with Python 2.7.13. P = multiprocessing.Process(target=f, args=(i, sem)) Sem = multiprocessing.BoundedSemaphore(3) Here is my Python sample code in a file named multi.py. However, this conclusion of mine seems to be incorrect. I was hoping that multiprocessing.BoundedSemaphore(3) would never allow its internal counter value to exceed 3.įrom this I concluded, that even if my process that acquires this semaphore ends up erroneously releasing the semaphore more than one time (say acquiring it once but releasing it five times), it would not allow more than 3 processes to acquire the semaphore at any point of time. How is multiprocessing.BoundedSemaphore(3) different from multiprocessing.Sempahore(3)?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |