Improving internal "protocol" names

[jugglinmike]

Currently, this project provides two mechanisms for creating a so-called "agent." One mechanism uses the "fork" system call to create a new process and then uses inter-process communication channel to maintain it. The other mechanism creates the agent within the running process.

At the moment, these two mechanisms (referred to in the source code as "protocols") are named "fork" and "api", respectively. We're not satisfied with these names, though:

[...] Renamed 'api' choices to 'developer' to try and better illustrate the intended contract.

I'm not tied to the developer name for the choice. I thought about calling it debug but I'm not sure about that. Like I don't think we want it to be confused as something to use with --debug.

[jugglinmike]

"exec" is the natural compliment to "fork", but it doesn't accurately describe the execution model. How about "InProcess" and "OutProcess"/"OutOfProcess"?