Criteria for listing a new client side framework

[LiveDuo]

Hey, thanks for maintaining this repo.

I built a web framework (that I launched 2 days ago) and was concidering openoing a PR but looking at the columns there are things like stars, contributors, github activity & downloads. In my case, since it's launch not long ago it has very few starts and since it's designed to be minimal I hope there won't be many commits. There was a good initial reception on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1i0hcrt/comment/m6z8u8h/ but right now that's all.

There's an issue about outdated but I couldn't find any information about inclusion in general.

[flosse]

@LiveDuo As already mentioned in the issue, there are currently no clear criteria, which is why every idea is welcome 😄
What I personally find important in any case is that there is a published version on crates.io.
And if you can add a slightly more complex example to the repo, that would certainly be good, although it's not a must.
I'm definitely keeping my hopes up for your project!

[LiveDuo]

@flosse This makes sense.

Right now it seems too early for the project I'd guess. Greg from Leptos made a few good points about memory management that I'd need to resolve and when it's closer stable I'd publish on crates.io. I also have to get some benchmarks done to verify that everything is on par with other frameworks.

And if you can add a slightly more complex example to the repo, that would certainly be good, although it's not a must.

Not sure if that a better example: https://github.com/LiveDuo/tinyweb-starter
If you've seen that already, I'm curious what you'd consider more appropriate.