docs: Add express-session-sqlite to README.md

[theogravity]

I built this session store and would like to include it into the readme.

[ghinks]

Thank you for your PR. There has been a little discussion around including so many references to 3rd party software. However the list on the session page has proven useful. What I would suggest is that we leave the PR open and monitor the uptake of your new module before we merge the PR.

[dougwilson]

There may be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem in that ask, as likely not being included in this list would hamper the ability for it to have uptake...

[theogravity]

I understand. Thank you for taking a look at the PR.

[jonchurch]

@ghinks I'm of the opinion it's up to Repo Captains when it comes to inclusion on the projects they steer. Like you pointed out, these types of repos are a special case where they really do need 3rd party modules. In this particular case, I'm more worried about an outdated list with dead projects, thereby funneling users into a defunct project by nature of it being prominently featured.

My 2 cents, I looked over this project and although I haven't used it, it ticks my boxes for a well thought out module.

However, there aren't any other sqlite express-session stores on NPM atm. If people do look for a sqlite session store on npm, they will find this one for sure.

[ghinks]

Yes, after thought and investigation I do believe having 3rd party lists can become a liability as many will link to modules that are hardly used. I am going to re-raise an issue at the package maintenance meeting next week to see if better tooling to simply list out dependents is possible with help from the registry folks.

[dougwilson]

Right, and even though this module in your head ticked a lot of the boxes, I have always believed it to be unfair to reject based on criteria not written. So far I have left the criteria empty.

If we want to come up with some kind of criteria, we should open a new issue. The worst is having a convo like this directly in a PR as it will end up lost since the lifecycle of closing it is unrelated to the conversation is a general sense. I'm referring to just the conversation around including the module list as a general issue vs including this specific module.

Currently this PR meets the only criteria laid to be included, so would seem on the surface to add "surprise" criteria after the fact :) that is just my 2 cents at least.

[ghinks]

Agreed, I’m going to come up with the vision plan for the next meeting and this will certainly be a part of it.

[dougwilson]

Hi @theogravity we didn't say we didn't want your PR per se, and I went to get it merged just now, but the repo was deleted. If you want to open a new PR, that would be welcome.