Robert Moskowitz writes:
https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/wayland_roadmap
Though I was told on the Xfce user list that there is no current work on
this roadmap.
I am not surprised. It's hard for me to come up with a value-added benefit
from Wayland that's visible to the end user. Oh, I'm sure there's a list,
somewhere, of all the wonderful advantages of Wayland. But what exactly does
it do, better, that the end user can immediately hold in their hand, and
inspect?
I don't know the answer to this question. I am not involved with the xfce
folks, but I am involved in a very related pet project, that also involves X
innards. I'm pretty certain I understand why they don't seem to place much
priority on Wayland. I can't quite see, myself, exactly why I will want to
sink a massive amount of time into pretty much reimplementing what works
perfectly adequately in X, in a completely different way with Wayland, and
what that will allow me to do that I cannot do (very well) with X.
Plus, X11 has very, very useful built-in advantages. It is very easy to
artificially constrain X's performance: tunnel X11 over ssh over a wifi
connection. If you're doing low level development using X11 primitives, this
setup makes any inefficiencies and bottlenecks in your use of X11 become
very, very easy to see and troubleshoot.
Setting aside the fact that you can't do tunneling with Wayland (AFAIK),
complaints about poor Gnome/Wayland performance, on older, less powerful
hardware, happen quite often. This probably isn't because of any inherent
defects in low-level layers, closer to the hardware, but rather to something
dumb happening higher up in the protocol stack, but completely missed by
someone who was developing it on a high-end, 64-core threadripper. I
forecast rocky road ahead for Gnome/Wayland, with constant complaints about
bad performance and stability. That's just the way it is.