# Building full tag paths vs. indirect tag bindings

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/building-full-tag-paths-vs-indirect-tag-bindings/71595>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Tags:** perspective\
**Created:** [March 25, 2023, 7:20pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/building-full-tag-paths-vs-indirect-tag-bindings/71595 "2023-03-25T19:20:48Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeffcd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jeffcd](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/jeffcd)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2023, 7:20pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/building-full-tag-paths-vs-indirect-tag-bindings/71595/1 "2023-03-25T19:20:48Z")

</div>

Hi all,

I'm looking at the "Perspective Faceplate Library" from Ignition Exchange and trying to understand something...  
When creating parameterized objects and faceplates, I would normally pass in the tag path and use indirect tag bindings. On this project though, the tag path is passed in and then custom properties are created using property bindings to the tag path and then a script transform to return the full path to the tag. Then throughout the faceplate, expression tag bindings are used which reference the full tag paths in the custom properties.

I'm trying to understand if there's any advantage to doing this vs. just indirect tag bindings?  
Wouldn't an indirect tag binding provide better performance than going through all these extra steps?

Ignition Exchange does note that this project was created for the 2021 ICC build-a-thon, so maybe the project was written in this way to meet certain build-a-thon requirements.

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/original/3X/7/4/749abaf71a363696922ea604fb1e54de7b459d26.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 25, 2023, 8:11pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/building-full-tag-paths-vs-indirect-tag-bindings/71595/2 "2023-03-25T20:11:48Z")

</div>

Whoever designed that doesn't know how bad that is for performance. Don't use a script transform where an expression will do, and use neither just to perform the string concatenation that an indirect binding will naturally offer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeffcd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jeffcd](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/jeffcd)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2023, 8:40pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/building-full-tag-paths-vs-indirect-tag-bindings/71595/3 "2023-03-25T20:40:16Z")

</div>

Thanks Phil !  
You described exactly what I was thinking, but I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.  
Appreciate the reply.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pdeswert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Pdeswert](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/Pdeswert)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 1:47pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/building-full-tag-paths-vs-indirect-tag-bindings/71595/4 "2024-06-12T13:47:43Z")

</div>

this is designed by a winCC user, working like this is required there