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There's an issue about outdated but I couldn't find any information about inclusion in general.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

[Ddystopia]

Well, in case of yew, it is just quite simple and works reliably, many things are done using other dependencies instead of yew itself. So it is only natural for it to not update as often.