Repriotizing this bug.

It was written this way (without setters) intentionally. 

However you might be right that in some cases when annotation type and 
short description are not changing, the implementation which returns 
values which are passed into the instance in constructor might be 
sufficient. 

Should I define (question on Jarda) something like:

class AnnotationSupport extends Annotation {
 private String annoType;
 private String shortDecription;
 public AnnotationSupport(annoType, shortDecription) {
  this.annoType = annoType;
  this.shortDecription = shortDecription;
 }
 String getAnnotationType() {
  return annoType;
 }
 String getShortDescription() {
  return shortDescription;
 }
}

??

Why it was written without setters? I think that you could make this
method non abstract and with setters.

Oops, should be "make this class non abstract and with setters"

The annotation type represent how the annotation looks like - whether 
it is breakpoint or bookmark. Only the module which implemented the 
annotation should be able to change this type (e.g. debugger can 
change annotation from enabled breakpoint to disabled breakpoint) and 
from this point of view (from API point of view) it make no sense for 
annotation to have public setter for annotation type. Nobody should 
want to call this public method. That was the reason - it is private 
property of the annotation and so only getter is available in the API.

To use a setter on an instance you must have the instance first. So is
 there a way how can I get all/some instances of modules annotations?

Editor implementations of NbDocument.Annotatable.addAnnotation() get 
Annotation instance. I think it was the main reason. Yes, it is a bit 
paranoid, but from some point of view it make sense.

As designed. I'm closing the issue. (was discussed by Yarda, Ales and 
me)

Resolved for 3.4.x or earlier, no new info since then -> verified

Resolved for 3.4.x or earlier, no new info since then -> closing.