Incorrect resolution of global symbols in LHS rule constraint (Java dialect) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: DROOLS-420 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-420 Project: Drools Issue Type: Bug Security Level: Public(Everyone can see) Reporter: Mike Rodriguez Assignee: Mario Fusco Priority: Minor Fix For: 6.1.0.Beta1 As described @ [http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Incorrect-resolution-of-global-symbols-...]. I upgraded from 5.5.0.Final of Drools (rule engine) to 5.6.0.Final and I am now seeing errors with globals. We have rule constraints that access globals in a DRL; like this: {code}some.classpath.package2.MyType ( global_instance.invoke(this) == true ) {code} I have {code}some.classpath.package.SomeType global_instance;{code} declared at the top of the DRL, but it doesn't seem to be interpreting it as a global in the rule's restriction. So, putting this into context within, I have a DRL such as: package my.package.example; global some.classpath.package.SomeType global_instance; {code} rule "Example rule" when some.classpath.package2.MyType ( global_instance.invoke(this) == true ) then // do something end {code} I am getting an error from the package builder originating from the "Example rule" specifying something like: "can't find method MyType.global_instance()" Once, again this did work in 5.5.0.Final, but in 5.6.0.Final I am getting a failure trying to build the knowledge package. It looks to me like the {{global_instance}} symbol is not being recognized as a global in the DRL and is trying to be resolved as a method of the MyType class. So I guess it would be trying to do a "MyType.global_instance().invoke(this)" or something. The intent is that {{global_instance}} will be set for a session with an immutable function-type of class (invoke is an instance method though; not static). The rule restriction uses this function/predicate to determine if some complex criteria is true for `this` MyType instance. I would appreciate any insight into what the issue might be. I haven't been able to find any threads out there on a similar issue.