2008/9/14 Tobias Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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...
Don't worry, there is no plan to join XCB by default yet, I only want to check, and maybe rant ;) Kind regards, --Anselm
