On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > 2008/9/14 Johannes Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 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 > >
