#20 Barcode printed using code39 is not readable by scanner

[Jyoti]

Hi,
I am using barbecue barbecue-1.5-alpha3.jar for generating a barcode with code39 symbology , it is then sent as a bytearray to jasper report and printed on a PDF file , but when i try to read it using a handheld Code 39 scanner , it is not able to read the barcode.

Can you tell what should i do now ? i have a release coming up in 2 days.

following is the code i am using to generate barcode

try
{
OBarcode = BarcodeFactory.createCode39(SBarcodeString,true);

OBarcode.setDrawingText(false);

}
catch(Exception OException)
{
OException.printStackTrace();
}

Barbecue version i m using is barbecue-1.5-alpha3

Please help me as soon as possible.

Thanks & Regards
Jyoti

[Colin Pretorius]

Logged In: YES
user_id=1866382
Originator: NO

We had a similar issue from a rendered PDF. We noticed that while the PDF displays correctly on screen, the far right bar of the bar code would be thicker than normal when printed to certain (but not all) printers, and wouldn't be recognised by a scanner.

This is obviously a bug with the print driver, but it *only* happens when the bar code doesn't have a quiet zone, ie. the far right of the image is a black line. If we embedded a bar code image with clear space on the edges, the bar would render correctly and the barcode would be scannable.

The problem is that Code39Barcode does not generate quiet zones, even if the drawingQuietSection field is set to true. I have created a separate bug for this, and included a subclassed version of Code39Barcode which does generate quiet zones and solved the rendering problem for us.

[Werner Keil]

Logged In: YES
user_id=581656
Originator: NO

Thanks for the additions Colin. Am I right in the assumtion, that this issue then looks like a duplicate of that filed by you?

[Colin Pretorius]

Logged In: YES
user_id=1866382
Originator: NO

Our issue only happened in a particular set of circumstances (PDF and an obscure print driver), so this bug could be a separate issue. In absence of more details or confirmation from Jyoti though, they could probably safely be regarded as duplicates.