Aha! It turns out that my Annotations are not being ignored - I just did not understand that I can (apparently) not mix both field and method level Annotations. My class has several read-only attributes (i.e. there is no associated set methods). In general, I would prefer to put my Annotations on the method level for code clarity sake. However, when doing this for the read-only attributes, I got an error complaining that a setter could not be found. This error message went away when I moved those Annotations to the field. Apparently though, this had the undersired effect of making all attributes 'field' access and effectively ignored all of my other method-based Annotations for columne name, length, etc. So, my questions now are: 1. Is there an EJB3 standard way of mixing both field and method access types? I would like to have my default for method, but be able to override in exception cases such as the read-only attribute discussed above. 2. Is there a better way to handle read-only attributes that do NOT have an associated setter? TIA! View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4116393#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...