On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2008/9/14 Johannes Wegener <ih-mon_AT_gmx.de>:
> > 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...
>
> Kind regards,
> --Anselm
>
>
Received on Sun Sep 14 2008 - 17:23:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 14 2008 - 17:48:04 UTC