E17 benchmarks

[Olivier Fourdan]

On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 11:46 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> Optimising the WM's mapping speed here is a waste of time: a classic
> case of useles optimisation of a non-critical path; a user wouldn't
> likely notice any difference.  I'd rather have the things Olivier
> describes: intelligent window placement, fast response to resize and
> move, etc.
> 
> So: oh yay, E17 maps windows quickly.  Whoopie-do.

I don't see e17 honoring partial struts (not even EWMH as far as I can
tell) and that makes a lot of difference because the WM has to compute
precisely where the window can be mapped. When using Xinerama, that make
things even more complicated because there is a single display/screen,
but for the user it's different monitors, so the WM has to do a lot of
computations.

Everything is just a matter of choice, as always. Would people prefer to
get a window mapped in 0.001 s instead of 0.01s and loose what makes
xfwm4 of good WM in a huge variety of real life usage ?

Debate is open... Or not, because again, I don't think this test shows
anything meaningful, except maybe for the developers of e17...

Cheers,
Olivier.