# Binding to Custom Component Methods

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/binding-to-custom-component-methods/19245>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Tags:** scripting\
**Created:** [August 14, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/binding-to-custom-component-methods/19245 "2018-08-14T16:58:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ahiero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Ahiero](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/Ahiero)\
**Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 3:31am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/binding-to-custom-component-methods/19245/7 "2018-08-16T03:31:15Z")

</div>

It seems to be working for the most part, but I am having some performance issues. I found an article [here](http://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-using-udt-param-can-you-access-udt-tag-metadata/10179/3) that says that referring to UDTs directly are heavy. This template is doing just that, extracting multiple fields from a UDT that it took as a parameter (of the _UDT data type_). This window has been slow and demands a lot of client-side CPU. Now the template itself demands more CPU than reasonable. Unless I have done other things wrong this appears to be the root of the performance problems unless someone can provide input that UDT references have been optimized. Is passing the string path and then gathering the required data using `system.tag.readAll()` still the recommended method?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/binding-to-custom-component-methods/19245)._