I'd like to second that. Java (and Maven) are part of a very mature ecosystem and there are organizations that have invested in "older" frameworks such as JUnit 4 or TestNG (or Maven).
Is there value to have a newer test runner that can be dropped in instead of surefire/failsafe? Yes. But we can not just abandon the vast amount on existing integrations and code that is using these. I am fine with declaring "we will not actively add new features to surefire/failsafe but we may consider contributions/PRs. New work for test execution will be focused on "<new plugin> and will only support <some test framework>" and let users choose. -h On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 5:47 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <[email protected]> wrote: > I am very skeptical that this is feasible. I still encounter new > projects with JUnit *3*. There are a phenomenal number of projects in > active development that depend on JUnit 3 and 4. JUnit 3, 4, and 5 are > very different frameworks and migrating from one to the next is not > trivial and usually not important or a wise use of developer time. Any > action that's predicated on everyone moving to JUnit 5 seems like a > non-starter. > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 7:09 AM Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to start a thread about potentially dropping surefire totally. > > The rational is that surefire (and failsafe) are mainly an abstraction > > layer on top of main test providers. > > However, since JUnit5 the platform/engine is itself such an abstraction > > layer and a runner. > > > > On another side, testng and junit4 are slowly getting abandonned - even > EE > > TCK started to move. > > > > In terms of additional features we do have the maven site integratoin - > but > > I doubt it is much used outside and to be honest it can be replaced with > a > > github/dev-factory link with more benefit these days. > > > > So overall I think we can converge by dropping surefire plugin in favor > of > > a thin wrapper of junit5 console runner ([1]). > > > > Short terms I'm sure Christian could help us getting something fast based > > on its implementation ([2] - including a small surefire compatibility > mode) > > and long term it will reduce the maintenance cost we do have for a very > > poor gain in current world (site and remoting are no more key features > > thanks the CI and doc evolution). > > > > Wdyt? Is maven 4 the mometum to do it? > > > > [1] > > > https://docs.junit.org/current/user-guide/#running-tests-console-launcher > > [2] https://github.com/sormuras/junit-platform-maven-plugin > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog > > <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> > | Old > > Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064 > > > > Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) > > > > -- > Elliotte Rusty Harold > [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
