# UDT Templates V8.0

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/udt-templates-v8-0/23982>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Created:** [April 10, 2019, 4:35am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/udt-templates-v8-0/23982 "2019-04-10T04:35:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![guldicw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f475e1/32.png) [@guldicw](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/guldicw)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 4:35am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/udt-templates-v8-0/23982/1 "2019-04-10T04:35:00Z")

</div>

With the improvements to the tag system in V8.0 is it still recommended to pass UDT tag paths as template parameters instead of the UDT tag itself?

---

<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:** [April 10, 2019, 11:40am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/udt-templates-v8-0/23982/2 "2019-04-10T11:40:43Z")

</div>

I wouldn’t, because it precludes using multiple non-related UDTs with the same template, nor using a plain folder that mimics a UDT in special cases. It would be good to know if the performance hit for UDT properties has been fixed. Are you going to test this for us?