Renaming in com_api

[piotrchodorowski]

This PR contains only renaming of API's contents to improve overall readability.
It is intended to not add any functional changes here which will be provided in further PRs.

[darkwisebear]

I personally couldn't care less, but let's coordinate this a bit better:

• Renaming Runtime -> Adapter should be discussed in the COM round so that also C++ people are ok with that, as naming should be close. If it has been discussed, please add a reference to the discussion and a link to the respective ticket for the change in C++.
• Adding a Concept suffix should be discussed in the Rust community and added as an explicit guideline at https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/development/rust/rust_api_design.html. I personally do not see the point, as 1. it's a trait, so it's by definition a concept and 2. it's part of a crate called "*.concept.*", so if anyone wants to explicitly show that in the source, they could just add the crate name when referencing the type.

[pawelrutkaq]

I personally couldn't care less, but let's coordinate this a bit better:

• Renaming Runtime -> Adapter should be discussed in the COM round so that also C++ people are ok with that, as naming should be close. If it has been discussed, please add a reference to the discussion and a link to the respective ticket for the change in C++.
• Adding a Concept suffix should be discussed in the Rust community and added as an explicit guideline at https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/development/rust/rust_api_design.html. I personally do not see the point, as 1. it's a trait, so it's by definition a concept and 2. it's part of a crate called ".concept.", so if anyone wants to explicitly show that in the source, they could just add the crate name when referencing the type.

1. Yes lets discuss in Com CFT, Runtime is pretty different name for different things especially in Rust. We should find more appropriate name.
2. Lets not do it, after rediscussion it's rather the impl name that shall be fixed not to have trait Sample and pub struct Sample. So we definitely shall get rid of what you can see below where the trait the struct and the connected type have exactly same name. Is that something that makse sense?