I cannot try it, as my window manager (and in fact almost the entirety of small lightweight window managers) is not compatible with it, and never will be given the insanely higher requirements to implement a compositor compared to a WM. Wayland supporters say that'll change; I don't see how.
There are at least 20 different options to choose from, surely one of them has what you want. And that number is only going to rise. Saying it never will is extremely short-sighted.
I want an openbox/fluxbox look and UI. About the only one I know of is labwc, and it's shit (despite being proudly on your list). I'm fairly sure that a lot of these, in fact, aren't close to usable.
Again, it's not that relevant, for now I can still use Xorg. For now.
It's changing by having a library like wlroots do most of the work.
When you consider the overall picture, "wlroots + compositor" is actually less complex than "X11 + window manager" because you no longer need to consider the insanely high requirements of having to have a team maintaining the spaghetti mess of X11 code.
Wayland-based dwl has roughly the same line count as X11-based dwm (about 2.2k), without having to depend on a whole separate service as big as X11.
But of course, it being a completely different approach, it's likely that for most smaller projects (ie. not Gnome or KDE) it's easier to start a new project than creating a layer to maintain two different parallel implementations.
If you want something that's more or less compatible with openbox, there seems to be this project, labwc, which claims to be inspired by openbox and compatible with its config/themes.. though I haven't personally tried it.
Also keep in mind that openbox (and I expect labwc too) doesn't include any "panels" / "taskbars" or anything like that... and it's likely your X11 panels might not work well if they do not explicitly support Wayland (but I believe that, for example, xfce-panel now supports both).
I cannot try it, as my window manager (and in fact almost the entirety of small lightweight window managers) is not compatible with it, and never will be given the insanely higher requirements to implement a compositor compared to a WM. Wayland supporters say that'll change; I don't see how.
There are at least 20 different options to choose from, surely one of them has what you want. And that number is only going to rise. Saying it never will is extremely short-sighted.
I want an openbox/fluxbox look and UI. About the only one I know of is labwc, and it's shit (despite being proudly on your list). I'm fairly sure that a lot of these, in fact, aren't close to usable.
Again, it's not that relevant, for now I can still use Xorg. For now.
It's changing by having a library like wlroots do most of the work.
When you consider the overall picture, "wlroots + compositor" is actually less complex than "X11 + window manager" because you no longer need to consider the insanely high requirements of having to have a team maintaining the spaghetti mess of X11 code.
Wayland-based dwl has roughly the same line count as X11-based dwm (about 2.2k), without having to depend on a whole separate service as big as X11.
But of course, it being a completely different approach, it's likely that for most smaller projects (ie. not Gnome or KDE) it's easier to start a new project than creating a layer to maintain two different parallel implementations.
If you want something that's more or less compatible with openbox, there seems to be this project, labwc, which claims to be inspired by openbox and compatible with its config/themes.. though I haven't personally tried it.
Also keep in mind that openbox (and I expect labwc too) doesn't include any "panels" / "taskbars" or anything like that... and it's likely your X11 panels might not work well if they do not explicitly support Wayland (but I believe that, for example, xfce-panel now supports both).