# \[FEATURE\]Add inheritance of UDT Definitions for tag providers

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/feature-add-inheritance-of-udt-definitions-for-tag-providers/76624>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Created:** [July 20, 2023, 6:45am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/feature-add-inheritance-of-udt-definitions-for-tag-providers/76624 "2023-07-20T06:45:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nminchin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/nminchin/32/6911_2.png) [@nminchin](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/nminchin)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2023, 6:45am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/feature-add-inheritance-of-udt-definitions-for-tag-providers/76624/1 "2023-07-20T06:45:51Z")

</div>

I wanted to promote this existing idea as it would mean using multiple tag providers is far more attractive and practical. Currently, using multiple is more pain than gain given that then you have N sets of UDT definitions to maintain...

> **[UDT Inheritance Across Providers | Ignition Features and Ideas | Inductive...](https://ideas.inductiveautomation.com/ignition-features-and-ideas/p/udt-inheritance-across-providers)**
>
> I would like to create a master UDT over all providers. The UDT may be instantiated in any provider and all instances are updated when the master changes.

---

<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:** [July 20, 2023, 11:37am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/feature-add-inheritance-of-udt-definitions-for-tag-providers/76624/2 "2023-07-20T11:37:43Z")

</div>

Can I downvote this? I **like** the separation tag providers enforce (especially that it discourages UDT parameters in UIs).