Changes to "Basic CS-Profile"

[andreas-junghanns]

Move to optional:

• resizable Inputs/Outputs : For most tools, changing the IO during runtime is impossible and we are calling this "Basic" which is, in my opinion, a contradiction

[MBlesken]

Move to optional:

• resizable Inputs/Outputs : For most tools, changing the IO during runtime is impossible and we are calling this "Basic" which is, in my opinion, a contradiction

Not even optional, I think. Same goes for "Resizable Parameter Arrays"

[MBlesken]

Why "Binary FMUs for Desktop Platforms" and "... intended mainly for desktop simulation uses"? (typo by the way) - This is a very basic profile in general. It could be a first set of features to be supported on any platform that wants to start supporting FMUs. Let's include those, too.

[chrbertsch]

Not even optional, I think. Same goes for "Resizable Parameter Arrays"

I would consider "Resizable Parameter Arrays" arrays as recommended.
Same for tunable parameters.

[chrbertsch]

Discussion:
Kaska: We could have a basic CS, "middle" and advanced CS Profile
Pierre: if the basic only contains feature that are mandatory anyway, it is not necessary. We could rename "basic". This was referring more to the CS features such as early return.
Pierre: the intention for this Profile was perhaps: "normal CS is enough, but we need the arrays". For the "resizable" users perhaps underestimated the effort.
Christian: Shouldn'd we have a "simple array profile" and an "advanced arrays profile
Pierre/ Matthias: we should come from use cases
Christian: Arrays are wanted by almost all users and they are mandatory in FMI 3.0 anyway.
Pierre: We could still list it, because there might be other use cases.
Currently the profiles are not very regularized. E.g. there is no basic ME profile. Currently all the profiles are standalone, the more advanced profiles list again all the simple features.