# Automation Professionals' Integration Toolkit Module **URL:** \ **Category:** 3rd Party Modules\ **Tags:** ignition81, vision, perspective, ignition83, scripting\ **Created:** [June 13, 2023, 12:42am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/automation-professionals-integration-toolkit-module/74934 "2023-06-13T00:42:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![pturmel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/pturmel/32/3295_2.png) [@pturmel](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/pturmel)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2023, 5:06pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/automation-professionals-integration-toolkit-module/74934/4 "2023-06-16T17:06:48Z")
This summary of performance advice by @lrose is relevant here: > [@Building for Performance](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/building-for-performance/71082/3): > > In this example, #3 is the most performant, though it could be argued that the performance gain in this instance would be negligible. Anytime you add an additional processing step you add latency. In general for the best performance I follow these guidelines: If you can achieve what you want with a binding, use a binding. Always use the binding type that is the most direct. (e.g. if all you need is a binding to a property use a property binding, not an expression binding.) Given the choice b… Note bullet point #3. That particular question applies to transforms as well as property change events. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/automation-professionals-integration-toolkit-module/74934)._