On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 3:14 PM Sergey Chernov <serega.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The main technical difference between surefire and failsafe plugins is the > execution phase. Failsafe is executed, when the package is already executed > and it's possible to e.g. run a server in pre-integration-test phase, run > ITs and then shut it down. I believe, nowadays it's losing its value as > most of the new projects are based on Spring Boot which uses an embedded > server and just does not need this complicated setup anymore. Perhaps > Quarkus does the same. So IMO it's okay it's not declared by default. >
Don't have a strong opinion about failsafe vs surefire, but I will push back on the claim that most of the new projects are based on Spring Boot. Certainly there are many devs in the Spring Boot ecosystem who use it routinely, but there are many who have never gone anywhere near it, myself included. At Google, SpringBoot only came up when talking about how third parties might want to deploy their own apps on GCP. At Meta it never came up at all. Sometimes we can get tunnel vision and assume our stack is the world, when really it's just one small to medium piece. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elh...@ibiblio.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
