Re: [dwm] XCB?

From: Anselm R Garbe <>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:02:02 +0100

2008/9/14 Tobias Ulmer <>:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> 2008/9/14 Johannes Wegener <>:
>> > I recently read that awesome is going to use XCB over Xlib and says that
>> > it is faster becouse it is asynchronous.
>> > Does XCB realy its job faster than Xlib?
>> > And if this is the case is dwm going to use XCB in any further release?
>> I'd be interested in benchmarks proving this thesis. Xlib isn't
>> synchronous either, though it can be enforced by clients to process
>> all pending requests using XSync(). I'd bet that a thread-safe Xlib
>> reimplementation from scratch using C might be a lot faster than XCB,
>> since XCB is generated code in plenty parts.
>> > Just some stupid questions - don't take them to serious - I like dwm and
>> > how it is,its just some kind of intrest in that thing of XCB :)
>> I have in mind to give dwm on xcb a try.
> Keep in mind that this locks out a number of users not running bleeding
> edge stuff...

Don't worry, there is no plan to join XCB by default yet, I only want
to check, and maybe rant ;)

Kind regards,
Received on Sun Sep 14 2008 - 20:02:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 14 2008 - 20:12:04 UTC