Group vs. Component
-
I am continuously confused by people referring to components. I have read a recent thread in this forum where the writer says that any sub-group in a DC must be a component to work properly.
In fact I ONLY create my DC with Groups and sub-groups.
Scouring the Google documentation, the only case for using a component is when you make copies of some geometry so that when one of them is modified, the others change as well. This feature is not necc. for a DC which has the Copies feature of course.
Writers in the forums talk about "component this" and "component that" but is it really necc... not in my experience. The attached DC uses only Groups.
Obviously I still have doubts , which is why I post here to see if there are any who would like to argue the point
-
Groups should work just fine. I think I (and perhaps most people) just get used to making everything a component. I've never found much use for groups personally.
-Brodie
-
I have exactly the same question, I like the idea of using groups inside my dynamic components as they don't clutter me up with lots of little sub-components that only have relevance within the main component.
I have used both groups and components successfully and haven't noticed any discernable difference but I am a newbie.
One day when I have time I have considered making a dynamic component using nested groups and an identical one using nested components and then compare the two for file size, speed etc.
Unfortunately my TODO list is pretty long, I will watch this thread with interest
Advertisement