API and endpoint renaming

[FabrizioMoggio]

As suggested here: #72 (comment)

I would like to see your opinion on:

1. renaming the API:

from "Call Forwarding Signal" to "Call Forwarding"

2. and the second endpoint name:

from "call forwardings" to "call forwarders"

Please note that this discussion in not necessarily for Fall24.

[FabrizioMoggio]

My personal opinion:

1. the "Signal" part in the name has its origins from GSMA OGW Product Work Stream. It refers to the action from the API that is not about creating a CF configuration but is indeed a "signal" back from the network reporting the information about the CF configuration already existing. Do I like it? not much :-). Anyway just "Call Forwarding" can be misleading. A change like this will drive us to a lot searching in the many documents, presentations etc. to fix it everywhere. An we need to align back GSMA. My suggestion is to stick with CFSignal. Anyway I also feel it is too late for such a change.

2. I don't feel "forwarders" appropriate and aligned with the terminology we used in the documentation, even if I somehow feel the comment right. We could add an "_info" or a "_signal" to the endpoints names:

• \unconditional_call_forwarding_signals
• \call_forwarding_signals

or, if we decide to remove "signals" from the API name:

• \unconditional_call_forwarding_info
• \call_forwarding_info

[FabrizioMoggio]

After the r1.3 I think this discussion can be closed. Any modification now will change the API too much.