Username or EmailPassword
There should not be graphics AIGLX effect that XGL can't do, and the reverse. At the end, all this work is done just to offload work to the GPU.
This is why libCM is becoming some kind of standard between them.
So when all this work is really finished (1-2 years at least) what is going to limit the amount of graphic effects you can get is your graphics card regardless of aiglx or xgl.
HW is not the limit. You actualy don't need a lot of it for basic composing.
Also notice that both aiglx and xgl are not the final solution, they're just different methods to make easier to evolve x.org to something like xegl, AFAIK (being xgl the most radical and the one that needs more work)
Nope. XeGL is something completely different. It should drive the same thing, but still completely different.
I really hope I will put this correctly.
XeGL is 3d drawing (where all 2d is handled trough 3d, without 2d handling possibility) in base server and footprint is small. Trouble with all legacy hardware, but ideal for embedded and some specific hardware.
AIXGL is using 3d where it needs and it runs in base server. It even allows disabling and rendering trough the 2d. Meaning legacy hardware should work.
XGL is overlayed 3d server. and is ideal for other purposes not covered by first two.
XeGL is not final solution. XeGL is just one of the solutions (and will be probably used in a lot of implementations), but I suspect XeGL is not the desktop material. In my opinion, best tech for desktop is AIGLX.
Final solution as you called it (or the best of evolution) will be option to pick the most suited and the best working of three for your specific case and use. And I seriously doubt that you'll be running same one on different implementations.